Tempels’ failure does not invalidate Bantu philosophy itself, which endures.

Evidence

Having said this, it is important that I return to the name Bantu Philosophy within the context of the overall title of the book Beyond “Bantu Philosophy”. It is imperative to concede from the outset that an impression has been created that, since the book is catastrophically misconceived, a requiem has been held for Bantu philosophy, in its sense as a philosophy articulated by Tempels. However, this fact cannot be stretched any further to imply that the initiative itself, which was probably started by Tempels to understand and therefore document the philosophy of the Bantu peoples, is also a closed chapter. Tempels did not found Bantu philosophy, where the term Bantu philosophy is understood as the philosophy of the indigenous peoples of Africa themselves. Tempels may have tried his best to understand and reconstruct it but, as is clearly apparent, failed in that endeavour. It is not my intention to enter into the reasons for his failure. It is sufficient to underscore the need to distinguish between Tempels as a person and Bantu philosophy as the philosophy of the indigenous peoples of Africa. Tempels attempted to provide an instantiation of it and failed, while Bantu philosophy, in the sense of the thinking and ideas of the indigenous peoples of Africa, remains alive, and its reconstruction is ongoing. As a living intellectual heritage, it is continuously unfolding in the light of the historical and cultural realities of its time. … The single most important lesson that African philosophers can draw from Western philosophy and its vast history is that philosophical singularity is not only impossible but undesirable. — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 349

Categorization

• DEFINE: Draws a precise distinction between Bantu philosophy as Tempels’ specific articulation versus Bantu philosophy as indigenous African thought itself.